Woman wants NHS to pay for her sterilisation

Scroll to see replies

On the contrary I didn't try very hard to piece together the glaringly obvious remark that she would abuse her children if she was forced or god-forbid fell-in love with a guy that wanted children.

Why add the bit about child-abuse and neglect if she didn't mean that?

I think you need reading comprehension lessons mate. I used the example of child abuse to illustrate how child-bearing is not for everyone, and the dangerous situations that can arise out of the one-size fits all approach to motherhood. If you'd bothered to think a little before rushing to ridiculous conclusions you'd probably have gotten that one.

4.jpg15.5KB

Reply 81

myblueheaven339

Original post by Sgt.Incontro

She is not selfish for not wanting to have children.

She is selfish for expecting the NHS (actually YOU or me) to cough up the cost.

Scrounger!!

Probably cheaper than years and years of contraception. Seems like a better deal to me.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 82

TorpidPhil

I take it back. I was wrong. It's not a bad idea :tongue:

Reply 83

FeelingDepressed

Original post by Danny McCoyne

To respond to you in a level you understand: your vagina is a part of your uterus. Use it.

Is it? My vagina isn't part of my uterus. My uterus is my womb, separated from my vagina by a cervix.

Is your dick part of your head despite it being separated by your body? Oops sorry, yes it appears it is.

As someone who is hoping to do a healthcare degree and dedictate many years to working for the NHS I don't personally have a problem with the NHS paying for this operation. It seems that with conditions, neither does the NHS:

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/female-sterilisation.aspx#Who

Consider the cost to a UK tax payer in bringing a child into the world. Consider the cost of antenatal support provided for a single birth and any subsequent use of the education service. Claims for child benefit and tax credits and that child's own health care from the cradle to the grave. Not to mention any possible sterilisation or partner vasectomy at a later date after completion of a family.

I think it represents very good value for money.

I would however have an objection if she came back later and wanted a reversal on the NHS.

To the OP, this is not Anti-Life, it is Pro-Choice, and I am amused by some of your comments. I suspect religion is behind some of your beliefs.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 84

myblueheaven339

Original post by Danny McCoyne

Not in response something I've read on a student forum admittedly must be me. :rolleyes:

To respond to you in a level you understand: your vagina is a part of your uterus. Use it.

That's poor biology knowledge.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 85

Danny McCoyne

Original post by FeelingDepressed

And as someone who is currently completing a degree in medicine I find your whole post rather patronising. The fact that you're "embarking" on a medical degree means squat. I don't give a **** and I'm sure you don't care what I do either. The point which I was demonstrating in my previous post is that the vagina together with the uterus are a part of the female reproductive system therefore females shouldn't use theirs solely for sex Therefore wasting a perfectly functioning uterus is imprudent and it's anti-life REGARDLESS of how you put it the pro-choice movement boils down to: dismembering of babies in the womb.

The NHS link says that surgeons are more willing to perform it on women older than 30 which this woman is not, she's 29, and also it stresses how important it is for the female in question to be sure this is what she wants because reversal is rarely funded on the NHS AND it even lists other less permanent contraception options.

I am religious. What's your point?

If anything being religious is an advantage since I value life much more than an atheist.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 86

Danny McCoyne

The NHS has refused to repeatedly sterilise her so they evidently agree with me. This "woman" need to re-evaluate her priorities and focus on something positive. I cannot image what man would want to be with her after she's sought 15 mins of fame by running to the DM, she will forever be branded as the sterilisation girl from the DM - not attractive at all.

I did not the say the uterus is the same as the vagina, I said the vagina and the uterus are both a part of the female reproductive system.

Reply 87

FeelingDepressed

Original post by Danny McCoyne

As someone who purports to be doing a degree in medicine you should be ashamed of your anatomical knowledge and your values.

The Guardian ran this piece originally on the 28th Jan with the article written by Holly herself, a tax paying journalist. The DM appear to have picked it up, edited it to add a helping of sensationalism and illustrated it with pictures of Holly in a tight dress to accentuate her amazing child bearing hips :rolleyes:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/28/why-wont-nhs-let-me-be-sterilised

Here you can read her story as to why motherhood is not for her, including being a cystic fibrosis carrier. She is sensible, logical and mature.

You, Danny Mc appear to feel that not only is it unacceptable for Holly to decide what she should do with her body, but acceptable that you can decide what she should be doing with it instead.

If you are doing a degree in medicine then I hope it is not with the intention of being a doctor as I wonder how you could cope with swearing the modern hippocratic oath, particularly:

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug

I knew you were religious, because your comments and desire to reproduce without consideration for consequence are straight from one of those 2000+ year old books that are interpreted to suit the reader.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 88

myblueheaven339

Original post by Danny McCoyne

If anything being religious is an advantage since I value life much more than an atheist.

That's a ridiculous assumption to make. Following a religion does not make you any more or less moral/ethical than anyone else.

Posted from TSR Mobile